Mozilla and Google Sign New Agreement for Default Search in Firefox - <AUTHOR> http://blog.mozilla.com/blog/2011/12/20/mozilla-and-google-sign-new-agreement-for-default-search-in-firefox/ <comment><USER2> Some additional data points to help parse this:

• the agreement appears to be with the Mozilla corporation, rather than the non-profit foundation... but the corporation is 100% owned by the foundation, so the distinction is mainly for tax/accounting/reporting advantages

• the prior agreement delivered over $80 million in yearly revenue to Mozilla (as of the last time I recall seeing credible numbers reported, a couple years ago)

• the prior agreement technically expired 3 weeks ago, so the multi-year renewal negotiations may have had some wrinkles

I hope Mozilla is now earning even more; with the rise of Chrome and iOS they may need it.

<comment><USER3> Admittedly I haven't paid close attention to the Mozilla Foundation even though I was an early firefox adopter and continue to use it on my macbook air...

tl;dr -- Google contract worth about 100 million in 2010 given the latest public numbers, more than 150% of the total engineering budget.

My rambling notes... I wanted to look into this corporation/foundation distinction to see how much money Mozilla gets from Google. Some highlights from Mozilla's _2010_ financial report (2011 isn't out):

[http://static.mozilla.com/moco/en- US/pdf/Mozilla%20Foundatio...](http://static.mozilla.com/moco/en- US/pdf/Mozilla%20Foundation%20and%20Subsidiaries%202010%20Audited%20Financial%20Statement.pdf)

1) Mozilla doesn't live off our contributions, not by a long shot: Mozilla only had collected 150k in contributions throughout 2010 and expected at most 1.7 million total (there is a discrepancy in time between when the report is prepared and when donors may actually send the check they promised).

2) Mozilla received 121 million from "royalty revenue" -- anything related to the Mozilla brand: Amazon affiliate programs, search engine branding like this Google deal, and sale of products from the Mozilla shop.

3) According to note 9 (footnotes are always where all juicy info is buried), 84% of the royalty revenue from 2010 is from "a contract with a search engine provider for royalties which expires November 2011." I take that to mean the Google contract. 84% of 121 million is ~100 million.

4) Mozilla's burn rate was 62 million, which means Google paid for the entire Mozilla development effort in 2010. Interestingly Mozilla's burn rate increased 50% from 2009. I can speculate this is from the increased competition from Chrome, but who knows.

5) Mozilla held 105 million -- yes million -- in investments in 2010 (mostly bonds and index funds, check out note 3). Without Google, Mozilla can use this war chest to operate for at least 2 years. That's much, much better than most companies.

6) Last, as a side note: there was a re-org in early 2011 (which I had missed) where Mozilla seems to have folded the thunderbird effort in with the browser team. This could be a "synergy" move, but it likely means they are divesting from that business and putting more people on the browser effort.

<comment><USER4> Thanks for the info. Very interesting.

Burn rate of 62M is pretty high. That can fund about 300 people plus other costs like hosting. Is that only for the browser or for other projects as well?

<comment><USER5> Not sure how reliable a source it is, but Wikipedia cites a Mozilla engineer's tweet as saying they have 600 employees, which is a bigger operation than I would've guessed: <https://twitter.com/#!/paulrouget/status/116110841669099520>

<comment><USER6> they doubled size this year to counter chrome's speed of development

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Firefox is an amazing piece of software and the fine folks at Mozilla are always pushing the envelope of online experiences. Am happy that Mozilla folks can concentrate on the software for the next couple of years without having to worry about funding.

<comment><USER8> On that note, I'd still worry. Essentially, they have 3 years now to come up with some other means of funding. I've donated to them before, but I don't think they can stay afloat with just donations.

<comment><USER9> "Funding" makes it sound like Google is doing this out of charity, or like Mozilla is a pre-profit startup that needs outside investment. Neither is true.

Google isn't "funding" Mozilla; it's a customer of Mozilla. Their search traffic payments aren't charity or venture capital; they are revenue. Search engines are always willing to pay for large amounts of traffic. Even Opera reports significant revenue from their desktop browser [1][2], which has an order of magnitude fewer users than Firefox. This is not the first time the Google/Mozilla deal has been renewed in the past decade, and I doubt it will be the last. And there are other search engines who will also continue to pay for valuable traffic.

(Note that individual donations are still important for the non-profit Mozilla Foundation, since tax rules limit how Firefox revenue can be used for the Foundation's other activities. Donations help support Mozilla's other projects to build the open web like the current projects in education, journalism, video publishing, and online privacy.)

1: <http://www.opera.com/company/investors/faq/>

2: <http://www.quora.com/How-does-Opera-Software-ASA-make-money>

<comment><USER8> > "Funding" makes it sound like Google is doing this out of charity, or like > Mozilla is a pre-profit startup that needs outside investment. Neither is > true.

I didn't even imply that, so don't suggest that I did. It's dishonest, and rude.

> Google isn't "funding" Mozilla; it's a customer of Mozilla. Their search > traffic payments aren't charity or venture capital; they are revenue.

Yes. I know this. My concern is this customer accounts for, what, 80% of the total revenue? Are you telling me that if this deal feel through, Mozilla wouldn't be impacted? Because that is my concern. From my perspective, despite having contributed numerous times whenever I could to the Mozilla Foundation, it concerns me what would happen to Mozilla is Google didn't contribute.

Hell, my most recent donation was helped along precisely _because_ of this fear.

> And there are other search engines who will also continue to pay for > valuable traffic.

Bing. I have no doubt, but I don't know that. It's all behind closed doors for the most part.

You make it sound like Mozilla doesn't need my donations, and doesn't need the Google deal. Could it do everything it does without donations or Google as a customer? Could it? If so, great!

I feel like I'm being vilified for being concerned.

<comment><USER9> > I didn't even imply that, so don't suggest that I did. It's dishonest, and > rude.

I'm very sorry!

I hope I wasn't putting words into your mouth. I was reacting less to your comment and more to the repeated use of the word "funding" in all sorts of articles on this topic. I think it both reflects and affects how (some) people perceive Mozilla. For example, the business press would not say that the Defense Department is "funding" a contractor like Raytheon, no matter how big a customer they are.

I'm probably feeling overly defensive after all the articles trying to create drama by claiming Mozilla was in imminent danger of Google "pulling the plug" (when actually a deal was still in place, and both parties were actively negotiating the new one but just couldn't talk about it yet). Within the Mozilla project, we know our userbase is still growing, and the market for search traffic is as strong as ever. But outside, friends are still asking me about these baseless scary stories in the press.

> Bing. I have no doubt, but I don't know that.

Yes I believe Mozilla earns revenue from Bing, and also several other sites, including regional search engines in various locales. In some of our localized builds, Google isn't even the default search engine.

> You make it sound like Mozilla doesn't need my donations, and doesn't need > the Google deal. Could it do everything it does without donations or Google > as a customer? Could it? If so, great!

Not at all! As I mentioned, donations are very important to Mozilla -- disproportionately important, because in addition to the financial resources, they give us individual support that's important to our existence and activities as a non-profit public service foundation. And income diversification (your stated goal) can't hurt either.

And you're correct that Mozilla would be impacted hugely if for some reason Google stopped paying search affiliates. (But of course, Google would be greatly impacted too, which is one reason I'm not actually worried about this right now.) I have no doubt that Mozilla _will_ grow other sources of revenue _if_ it needs to -- but that's a matter of long-term contingency planning. And no matter what Google does, our own priorities are clear: Make great software that serves our mission and our hundreds of millions of users. As long as we do that, we have leverage and we have control of our fate.

Many successful open source projects run on volunteer contributions, individual donations, sponsorships, and other sources of support. If revenue did decrease for some reason, Mozilla could continue to exist as a smaller organization -- even a much smaller one if necessary, like it was when Firefox was first developed. We wouldn't have the same reach we do today, but we're already used to competing with companies like Apple, Google, and Microsoft that have literally hundreds of times more money than us. Mozilla's biggest strengths have always been in the community and the source code. Steadily- growing Firefox revenue is a lever that helps amplify those strengths, but remember that the success of Firefox created the revenue streams, not the other way around.

I'm glad you're concerned, because these _are_ challenging times for Mozilla and the open web. We do need all the support we can get. But I hope Mozilla gets support based on the great things we've done and will do -- not based on fear that someone else will come along and squash the movement. We will not be squashed so easily!

<comment><USER8> > I'm very sorry!

I'm sorry as well. I probably overreacted. Mozilla is just one of those organizations that I respect and worry over. I remember Netscape, and then Mozilla, and then a little 0.1 browser named Phoenix, and have used every version.

> I was reacting less to your comment and more to the repeated use of the word > "funding" in all sorts of articles on this topic.

I do the same far too often. I reply to a specific comment, and instead of replying to that one comment, I reply to everything that comment reminds me of. It's not fair. I understand how easy it is to do.

It's all good. =)

> I'm probably feeling overly defensive after all the articles trying to > create drama by claiming Mozilla was in imminent danger of Google "pulling > the plug" (when actually a deal was still in place, and both parties were > actively negotiating the new one but just couldn't talk about it yet). > Within the Mozilla project, we know our userbase is still growing, and the > market for search traffic is as strong as ever. But outside, friends are > still asking me about these baseless scary stories in the press.

Didn't know you were apart of Mozilla. Should have checked your bio. Btw,

I LOVE YOU GUYS! =)

Anyways, to your point: outside, baseless scary stories or not, it's all we had to go on. Just think about it for a second from our point of view: Google has Chrome, the #1 browser by some accounts, and it's paying Mozilla for searches. And then their deal with Google ends. And nothing is really said from either party. I get emails from Mozilla asking for donations after this happens. Press reports talk about the how much Google as a customer means to Mozilla's bottom line.

So... I get nervous.

> Not at all! As I mentioned, donations are very important to Mozilla

Oh, I realize this. I only wish there was some way I could contribute more regularly. As it stands now, I have to be reminded to contribute. Might it make more sense to help automate that process for those interested? Reddit took the plunge with Gold Accounts, and that seemed to have helped. You don't even need to do anything. Just something that lets me say "Yeah, I'll contribute $X per month, because I love what you do, but fairly forgetful and will sometimes miss the 'Donation' emails."

> Mozilla could continue to exist as a smaller organization -- even a much > smaller one if necessary, like it was when Firefox was first developed.

I don't want to see that though. You guys do too much awesome. Besides the EFF and FSF, there is Mozilla. And with you in the ring fighting the fights you fight, I know that someone is looking out for me.

> we're already used to competing with companies like Apple, Google, and > Microsoft that have literally hundreds of times more money than us

True, but I'm not. And I see these big 800lb gorillas and remember the days of IE6 dominance and the end of the browser wars. I remember vendor lock in.

> But I hope Mozilla gets support based on the great things we've done and > will do -- not based on fear that someone else will come along and squash > the movement.

That's a fair point. And a good one.

I'll leave it at that, before I start gushing completely as a fanboy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Mozilla has got to find an alternate revenue stream. Maybe it can start charging for Firefox Sync space or something like that. Maybe it can take a cut of donations from Mozilla Addons or sell more prominent spots there. The fact of the matter is that it is immensely irresponsible to depend almost entirely on Google for operations. Google could pull an Enron and be gone tomorrow, Google's founders could die or resign and the company could fall to MBAs who don't understand the logic behind paying $100 million/yr to a competing web browser, and so forth. There has to be more money involved here if Mozilla expects to have longevity.

Really this is true of open-source software as a whole. There really needs to be a better way to monetize than begging for donations and/or selling T-shirts if these projects are going to live on. As times continue to turn tenuous, this will only become more crucial.

I fully believe in OSS and Mozilla specifically, but the reality is that we _have_ to find a way for OSS to be at least somewhat profitable without relying on the goodwill of a handful (or less) of benevolent entities.

<comment><USER11> Do you really think Google could vanish? Google search has become such a necessity in internet culture today, and culture is very hard to change.

Hell... "google" is a verb in the dictionary: <http://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/google>

<comment><USER10> It doesn't have to vanish to get taken over by executives that don't see the value in providing such a huge chunk of money to a company that offers a competing product. In fact, I reckon that most business schools teach this kind of support for your competitor is extremely bad. We know that brilliant and awesome companies end up in the hands of MBAs and it's all downhill from there. Mozilla should certainly plan for this eventuality.

<comment><USER12> You're way oversimplifying it. Google gets a huge influx of traffic through this deal, and Mozilla would most likely be able to generate income from their 30% of the browser space if Google didn't sign this (possibly even from Bing, which is even worse for them). That kind of market space itself is a valuable asset, and is why Google is willing to go through this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I love Firefox (and Chrome! no need to be zealots :D ), but I'm even happier that this means there will be no interruption to the full-time development of Mozilla's new systems programming language, Rust:

<http://www.rust-lang.org/> <https://github.com/graydon/rust>

Coincidentally, for those who like to make much ado about Mozilla vs. Google, Rust has a lot of similarities to Go. (As both projects began as semi-secret, low-key affairs, this is due more to convergent evolution than anything.)

</comment><comment><USER14> Is there any way to monetize legitimate software search traffic to a decent search engine without cutting a special deal like this?

I have an app-launcher-like project I'm working on that could benefit from this kind of arrangement, but browser toolbar scammers seem to have scorched the earth.

Anyway, great to see this deal continue. This is a great partnership that I presume both sides would like to keep going, but the details still have to work out right.

Sort of like Pixar and Disney in the 90's. Then again, Disney didn't figure out how to make Pixar-quality movies back then, yet Google has definitely figured out how to make a world-class browser.

<comment><USER15> i'm pretty sure google's custom search provides income from ads clicked through it.

<https://www.google.com/cse/>

<comment><USER14> Google is totally a no on this count. Their generally-available programs are all for people entering search terms into Google's own widgets and specifically exclude software sources. I asked around at I/O and the answer was basically a shrug and suggestion to "get big and call biz dev".

I fully understand why, of course — they have lots of tools and expertise for verifying the authenticity of web-based queries, but software has to monitored in a different and likely less scalable (maybe even human-driven?) way.

And Google hardly needs to pursue desktop apps' small (and, to be fair, traditionally risky) traffic source, so in turn they haven't developed the technology to make that scale better.

I still love Google search though, so I wish I could use them. Instead I have to choose between monetizing what is clearly very valuable search traffic and giving users a search experience I think is outstanding. It's really frustrating.

If anyone has any ideas how I can cut this Gordian knot, feel free to get in touch via my profile info.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> > The specific terms of this commercial agreement are subject to traditional > confidentiality requirements, and we're not at liberty to disclose them.

This sentence lets one think about the importance of openness in the Open Source community. I wonder if the community would accept the same clause if Microsoft/Bing were to provide the next three years of Firefox searching.

<comment><USER17> > I wonder if the community would accept the same clause if Microsoft/Bing > were to provide the next three years of Firefox searching.

Money is money. Absent some evidence of a conflict on the part of people at Mozilla, I would have no objection to that clause from MS/Bing. I would object to the deal as a whole on other grounds, though.

<comment><USER18> _I would object to the deal as a whole on other grounds, though._

May I ask why?

Mozilla was testing having Bing search defaulted in their Test Pilot project. So I suspect such a deal may have been very close.

(I think Microsoft actually offers such a Firefox from their site)

<comment><USER17> Because in my opinion, assisting Microsoft's acquisition of marketshare in any market is ultimately detrimental to everyone. They are a societal and economic evil, and directly aiding them is highly unethical.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, so how that's fundamentally different of any other company? Do you really think that if Chrome would get 90% of the market share the web would be a better place?

It'll be just as closed. It would still have some remains of open source, but the technologies wouldn't work with anything non-Google.

Which essentially is the same thing.

Heh, Mozilla should start MozillaSearch :P

<comment><USER17> It is my opinion that, based on their conduct past and present, Microsoft's existence and power is a net loss for the world. Google's past and present conduct lead me to the opposite conclusion. Naturally, I will treat these two entities differently.

Hypothetical future scenarios based on some rather extreme assumptions I do not agree with are not going to change that.

You are, of course, free to reach different conclusions, but the level of hostility and condescension I've received here for voicing my opinion in response to a direct question is disturbing to say the least.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I've been using about:blank as my home page for awhile, does Google ever advertise Chrome on the default Google/Mozilla homepage?

<comment><USER20> I'm a Mozilla web developer. Mozilla controls the homepage now, and all "snippets" on the about:home page are for Mozilla-related projects or things we believe in.

So, no.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Mozilla's placement of Google as the default search engine in Firefox makes a huge difference in Google's continued position as the default search engine people turn to. Google at this point doesn't provide profoundly better search than anyone else; several other search engines exist which have results more or less as good as Google's, or possibly even epsilon better. Google has three things going for their search engine: the inertia of people using what they've gotten used to as long as it remains "good enough", the pile of other services Google offers that integrate very well with each other, and Google's position as the default search engine in most browsers.

<comment><USER22> I think it's more of Google practically being ingrained into people's heads as _the_ way to get somewhere on the net. Time and time again I've seen people with MSN or Bing as their homepage, and they'll just search for "google".

<comment><USER21> I can't argue with that. But its placement as the default search engine goes a long way towards ingraining it into people's heads.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> At some point it should make sense for Mozilla to support Bing : Mozilla is here to bring a better internet, and there can only be a better internet with competition. MS is losing tons of money for operating Bing ; there is a risk that they decide to stop losses. If Bing was shut down Google would be the only lasting real player in the search space, and that would not bring a better internet. My 2c ;)

</comment><comment><USER24> With Mozilla's downward slope in browser share, it seems smart to keep the relationship going for both of them. If Mozilla keeps losing ground to Chrome, Google wins. If Mozilla grows its userbase somehow, Google wins. Not to mention Mozilla keeps getting paid for what they do.

</comment><comment><USER25> Would be interesting to see how much Google spends on Chrome development each year. I suppose it is much less than the estimated 100 million they pay Mozilla, so this alone would have been reason enough to create their own browser.

<comment><USER26> There is no way it is less than $100m. The Chrome team is at least the same size as the Firefox team, if not significantly larger. Google probably spent a good chunk of $100m on advertising Chrome; television spots and subway posters don't come cheap.

<comment><USER27> > There is no way it is less than $100m. The Chrome team is at least the same > size as the Firefox team, if not significantly larger.

I would guess significantly larger. And Apple's WebKit engineer's efforts are also of value, making it effectively even larger.

> Google probably spent a good chunk of $100m on advertising Chrome; > television spots and subway posters don't come cheap.

It's much more than that. Chrome is advertised pretty much everywhere online, and it has deals with lots of shareware software, where Chrome is installed along with for example Adobe Acrobat. The cost of all of these user acquisition strategies has to be way more than $100M.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Well that would be Mozilla's retirement fund..

</comment><comment><USER29> I guess the "mutually beneficial revenue agreement with Google" contains Mozilla's agreement to support Dart.

<comment><USER30> The open governance of the Mozilla project is not subject to the sort of back- room dealings you imply.

(Disclosure: I work for Mozilla, but have no knowledge of the inner-workings of the new deal.)</comment></comment>


Microsoft readies for war with new 'Small Business Division' for cloud push - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/cloud/2010/07/microsoft-readies-for-war-with.php

<comment><USER2> I stopped being a Microsoft fan many years ago, but it seems like they have a great way to fight back against Google Apps, etc.: make all new versions of Windows work out of the box with free versions of Sharepoint, online Office, etc. and hope to get revenue when some individuals and most companies upgrade to premium services.

Ubuntu One is roughly the same idea: build a service right into the distro.

</comment><comment><USER3> Excellent, now they only need to hire a guy to go out and evangelize the MS platform for startups and small businesses!

Oops: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Dodge>

<comment><USER4> There are plenty of guys who go out and evangelize the MS platform for startups and small businesses. I know a bunch of them, contact me if you want to meet them.</comment></comment>


Yet another AWK competitor - C++ - <AUTHOR> http://github.com/lvv/scc

<comment><USER2> A C++ Repl while really interesting and nice and all that--- does not an AWK make. Given the examples shown, you can do some AWKish things, but so can Perl or Lua or whatever... Tis cool though, gotta give it that!

<comment><USER3> Well, it also probably compiles a full C++ program before running it. So performance would be terrible. I think this was made as tongue-in-cheek with all of the ruby awk stuff we've seen lately.

What I take out of this is "the unix command line tools are there, learn them and use them."

<comment><AUTHOR> Interactive performance? SCC compilation is about 1 sec on my old laptop with warm cache. Good enough for command line tool. Or do you mean run time performance? Run time probably faster than anything else.

<comment><USER4> _[...] 1 sec [...]. Good enough for command line tool [...]_

lol

<comment><USER5> For interactive use - yes, it's good enough. For use in scripts - it's probably too slow. But you can use compiled binary. It is saved under /tmp/<user-name>-scc</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Infographic of Smart Phone Growth in South East Asia - <AUTHOR> http://www.entrepreneurs.my/infographic-of-smart-phone-growth-in-south-east-asia/

<comment><USER2> Weird that Singapore has the lowest percentage (39%) that answered "yes" for the smartphone question, yet it has the highest iOS penetration in the world: [http://asia.cnet.com/crave/admob-singapore-has-worlds- highes...](http://asia.cnet.com/crave/admob-singapore-has-worlds-highest-ios- penetration-62111473.htm)</comment>


10,000 GitHub users inadvertently reveal their AWS secret access keys - <AUTHOR> http://www.net-security.org/secworld.php?id=16566 <comment><USER2> Not surprising this is a common mistake. It seems to be a frequent practice to store keys (and other user/pass combos) in source code despite the obvious major security risks.</comment>


HipChat security notice - <AUTHOR> https://blog.hipchat.com/2017/04/24/hipchat-security-notice/ <comment><USER2> Doubt this will be a popular view around here, but using a 3rd party service for internal business communications is just a bad idea.

I've seen companies posting root passwords, ssh keys, salaries, internal financial details, etc in Slack and HipChat. Just waiting for a disaster to strike, adding value for every additional company to the target. Maybe this breach won't be the last straw, but it's a consistent risk.

You can run your own MatterMost or XMPP server quite easily and even lock it down to behind VPN only to minimize security risks almost completely.

<comment><USER3> In my experience, using irc or xmpp mostly results in people not using it unless a) the team is largely technical or b) there's a common, easy interface like gchat used to be.

<comment><USER4> Why are you giving your employees a choice in the matter of something so important? Set up an XMPP server, tell them that's what is used for internal communication. Period.

And if they're too lazy/dumb/entitled to download Adium/Pidgin and enter their email address+password; well, you should probably find better employees.

<comment><USER5> Friends don't let friends use libpurple based messengers. Sadly, Adium development is pretty stale and unresponsive to even major security issues such as [https://threatpost.com/code-execution-vulnerability-found- in...](https://threatpost.com/code-execution-vulnerability-found-in-libpurple- im-library/124448/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Needless to say their (login) servers crashed from the pressure of people resetting their credentials.

"Hey, you know what might be a good idea? Let's email all of the accounts at the same time using an Appriver blast!"

Atlassian. I hate to hate you.

<comment><USER7> While I can see your point in this case I think it was the appropriate action, their ops team should've just beefed up their resources in conjunction with the email blast.

Only emailing a rolling amount of your customers becomes a shit show of support, who do you email first? Who do you email last? How long do you wait between groups? For who is security important, your biggest customers, highest paying, most security conscious? It's a real shit show to know, and one you'd absolutely get wrong, letting everyone know as fast as possible is the only acceptable solution to a security breach.

<comment><USER6> The servers should have definitely been prepared for the increased load. Perhaps I'm overly optimistically using the plural form in this case.

Truth to be told I can only assume this was done in a short burst, given my limited sample of (hopefully ever narrowing) circle of people who use Atlassian products. But would distributing the bulk-mail over an hour (two, three) using a randomized sample of their customer base really made a significant impact to security or their support?

I wonder how I'd do it, really, if let's say, beefing up my infrastructure for some reason isn't an option.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The HipChat desktop client had a trivial MITM vulnerability which took them several months to fix after I reported it. They never made any kind of public notice about it, so I'm almost surprised to see them talking about security here.

<comment><USER9> Where does that vulnerability report fit in with the Atlassian acquisition? (circa spring 2012)

<comment><USER8> It was first reported around this time last year, so "after".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I wonder which "popular third-party library" caused the problem

<comment><USER11> More importantly, I wonder how much they were paying for this library, or to what extent they were supporting it internally. Because if the answer is zero and they weren't, I would put a lot of the blame on HipChat engineering.

<comment><USER12> I'm not sure I understand you - You would blame the users of a third-party library if the library was found to have a vulnerability and it was exploited against the people using the library?

<comment><USER13> IMO, frankly, yes.

If you use someone else's code, especially if you're not paying anything for it, you get what you put into it: nothing.

The liability for this breach is ultimately owned by Atlassian, not the third party library writer. To quote the most permissive license out there:

"THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED."

<comment><USER12> To use an analogy, do you blame everyone that has ever used the linux kernel whenever bugs/vulnerabilities are discovered in the kernel?

<comment><USER13> I would certainly blame Google if their Android phones were backdoored, especially if they tried to foist the blame off on the Linux kernel developers - a much more apt analogy since they sell Android phones.

<comment><USER14> I would be very surprised if something as complicated as Android phones didn't contain anything that can be back doored.

Obviously that is Google's problem, but I haven't seen Google (nor Atlassian in this case) claim anyone else is to blame.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Do they really need a captcha on BOTH username AND password input? I get that they are different submit pages, so they are likely querying the database on each page, but is that really necessary? I don't see any benefit from it, as a user, while trying to log in to my account.

</comment><comment><USER16> My recent password update policy: Wait for a service to be hacked and then change the password to a long hash generated by Keepass. I was thinking of spending a whole day updating all the passwords for all the services I have accounts on but at the rate sites are getting hacked, it won't be long before I have created unique hash passwords for all the sites.

</comment><comment><USER17> I miss IRC. All it needs is a few tweaks to bring it to 2017..

<comment><USER18> Then you might like Matrix. From the IRC point of view, it's basically IRC, but updated to become a 2017 protocol.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> By the way, HipChat still has no two-factor authentication.

</comment><comment><USER20> Is this implying their database was leaked?

<comment><USER21> Yes, possibly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I understand not disclosing the vulnerability itself, but if they won't even disclose the affected library's name then they are being grossly irresponsible or are under an NSL. If they are under an NSL and not just being irresponsible that would mean the vulnerability is part of one of the stolen NSA exploit kits.

If I use the library, and it is non-essential for my business, then I should know what it is so that I can remove it.

</comment><comment><USER23> > If you are a user of HipChat.com and have not received an email from our > Security Team with these instructions, we have found no evidence that you > are affected by this incident.

Well, I didn't receive anything, but couldn't log in either. I had to google this to find out what the hell is going on - error messages on the login page are not helpful either, they just refuse login even after resetting the password.

</comment><comment><USER24> Just got hit by this. Everybody in my team was using HipChat as a primary online communication tool. So, was nice to see nobody in the room for a while.

      Fine, but I wonder why they didn't reset the API tokens while resetting password immediately. Are they managed by the different servers/services?

</comment><comment><USER25> well written blog post imho

</comment><comment><USER19> "This weekend our Security Intelligence Team detected" ...

"Security Intelligence Team" ... yeah, because that team actually exists.

<comment><USER19> It's sitting right next to the emoji team.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Why are they force resetting everyone's password if they are bcrypt'ed?

<comment><USER25> it's considered best security practice to do so

<comment><USER19> By whom?

<comment><USER26> Science.

You might find the below numbers interesting. Note that this performance is only one workstation with 8x gtx980. Even the mighty bcrypt (sidebar, look at the sha512 #s) won't save you if your password is bad. Now consider social media mining to enhance the word list. Now consider that (anecdotally) I have never done a hashcat audit and not had to have a conversation with someone about choosing better passwords:

Hashtype: bcrypt, Blowfish(OpenBSD) Workload: 32 loops, 2 accel

Speed.GPU.#1.: 6398 H/s Speed.GPU.#2.: 6507 H/s Speed.GPU.#3.: 6513 H/s Speed.GPU.#4.: 6643 H/s Speed.GPU.#5.: 6534 H/s Speed.GPU.#6.: 6512 H/s Speed.GPU.#7.: 6689 H/s Speed.GPU.#8.: 6542 H/s Speed.GPU.#*.: 52338 H/s

[https://gist.github.com/epixoip/c0b92196a33b902ec5f3](https://gist.github.com/epixoip/c0b92196a33b902ec5f3)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> WTF? I got the email from HipChat. It includes this sentence. Without additional non-techy context

"HipChat hashes passwords using bcrypt with a random salt."

This is a good example of how not to do mass e-mails targeting the general population.

<comment><USER28> If they'd just said "We securely store your passwords", they would have tech people with pitchforks and torches about how they need to name their password hashing algorithm.

If they'd explained both ways, somebody would accuse them of the notification being too long as part of a scheme to bury the details below the fold.

As a company reporting an issue, no matter what you do, the internet's gonna nit pick</comment></comment>


Facebook Dating - <AUTHOR> https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2019/09/facebook-dating/ <comment><USER3> I think this might be a (relatively) rare strategy error for Facebook. If the success of Snapchat, LinkedIn, and also the separate WhatsApp/Instagram properties proves anything, it's that there are very different faces of ourselves that we show to the professional world, to our friends, to partners, and to the world at large.

If I was facebook, I would very explicitly announce this as a spin out project, under a different name and brand. While HN has a good knowledge of the ultimate parent owners of apps, I meet _a lot_ of people who protest facebook by moving to Instagram/WhatsApp. Even announcing this through the instagram brand would have made more sense to me.

<comment><USER4> > it's that there are very different faces of ourselves that we show to the > professional world, to our friends, to partners, and to the world at large

I think Facebook's goal is to make it so that you have one persona you show to everyone. To me, that seems like a cultural thing unique to Silicon Valley that the rest of the world does not necessarily want.

It seems like a mistake. If you have one persona, that means that you need to optimize that persona for your career and ironically it feels more stiflingly conformist. Just my personal feelings on the matter, though. I'm not trying to call out anyone who likes that way of life (and perhaps has a personality that's well suited for it), just that it should not be imposed on everyone.

I kind of like the old model where you pretend to be conservative at work, and are free to be as weird as you want to in your own time.

<comment><USER5> > If you have one persona, that means that you need to optimize that persona > for your career and ironically it feels more stiflingly conformist.

I understand where you're coming from, but this statement isn't necessarily a truism. You can wear who you are on your sleeve and even be quite extreme, if you're a reasonable person who can build and maintain professional relationships.

I do almost everything online under my real name, and am not optimized for career purposes. It's just _me_. As a result, I've had my political beliefs and such come up in interviews on multiple occasions. In one case - as I found out a year or so after being laid off - my interview process took a couple of weeks longer than was typical because one of the executives/partners at the company was concerned specifically about my politics. On the other hand, I did in fact get that job (and loved it!) and I've gotten several connections and invitations to apply based upon my discussions. Surprisingly, they seem to be about evenly split between people who agree and who disagree with my stances. I'm passionate about political issues, but I do my best to be accommodating to others and not be aggressive about them.

It would be fair to say that my positions are pretty extreme, too. I'm a political anarchist; Anarcho-Capitalist / Voluntaryist, to be more precise. I am open about that even in professional settings because it has such an influence on how I approach relationships and the world in general. I tend to be a "systems thinker", and see everything as a balance of competing forces. I see the whole world through this lens; everything is influenced by incentives and disincentives. I have exactly one tattoo, a stylized graph of supply and demand.

<comment><USER4> Okay, try putting "Card-carrying gun owner and anti-abortion activist" on your resume and apply for big tech companies.

Or hell, even start a personal blog using your real name talking about opinions that are anathema to coastal dwellers. Watch your callback rate dramatically decline.

I grew up in a suburb of a conservative state, and I learned early on when to show "who I am and what I really believe" and when to be low-key about it. Others like me who did not learn that skill were bullied relentlessly. I got along pretty well.

If you actually had opinions many people disagreed with strongly, you'd be bullied and held back as well.

<comment><USER5> > Okay, try putting "Card-carrying gun owner and anti-abortion activist" on > your resume and apply for big tech companies.

Well, a resume isn't a place for that sort of thing at all, but I do pretty much that now. My name is unique - look me up. For what that's worth, a good portion of my posts even here on HN have something to do with guns. I try to be more "informative" than "confrontational", but that's because of the nature of the site more than anything else. I'm here to discuss, share, and learn, not to argue.

I'm definitely a "card-carrying gun owner". I literally put guns in the hands of children on a regular basis (I'm a 4-H youth firearms instructor), a past board member of a state gun rights organization, and an outspoken advocate for the recognition of individuals' rights to both defend themselves and to own and carry the most effective tools possible to that end.

It would be fair to say that I'm anti-abortion as well, with the caveat that I'm much more anti-government. I believe abortion is a terrible thing, but I also believe that giving government the power to prevent it would be much, much worse.

> Or hell, even start a personal blog using your real name talking about > opinions that are anathema to coastal dwellers.

I need to redesign my blog, and post more often, but hey - it's still in my real name: [http://www.lyndsysimon.com/category/politics.html](http://www.lyndsysimon.com/category/politics.html)

> If you actually had opinions many people disagreed with strongly, you'd be > bullied and held back as well.

Did you read my last paragraph? I'm an anarchist. The license plate on my Jeep is literally "ANARCHY." I'm actually not sure I could name a political position that's more strongly opposed by more people.

[edited for spelling]

<comment><USER6> >I'm an anarchist. The license plate on my Jeep is literally "ANARCHY."

Paying the government a premium to say you don't believe in it, that's rich.

<comment><USER7> Reminds me of the people who pay extra to the state to have the Gadsden flag license plate.

<comment> blaser-waffle They love those in Virginia

<comment><USER5> Ha! Funnily enough, I lived there for five years. My Arkansas "ANARCHY" plate replaced my Virginai "4NO GOV" plate: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/279byb/...](https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/279byb/after_over_a_year_driving_a_jeep_with_expired/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think HN should in particular not feel informed enough to comment on strategic benefit of product decisions like these, because the general HN opinion of FB which is at such odds at FB's place in society is enough to conclude that HN doesn't really understand FB.

HN is a SV or SV-adjacent bubble that takes pride in not having social media profiles and doesn't hesitate in boasting about it in every frigging thread, multiple times a day. In contrast, (b)millions around the world find value in social media every single day and use it for all kinds of applications.

I am confident FB understands this much better than people like us here who can't think of any good use cases of social media without presenting 10 riders to assure the crowd that we hate FB.

<comment><USER9> I take issue with your characterization of FB non-users on HN boasting about it. I deleted my FB years ago and I would never do such a thing.

<comment><USER10> I know we generally discourage humor and satire here but I think this comment nailed it in a very HNesque way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This seems like something they should have added ten plus years ago, when their demo was primarily college kids.

I know many people who were clamoring for it at the time. It would have been an obvious addition as dating and relationships were a large part of the reason a lot of people _used_ Facebook. I half suspect this is an attempt to pull college kids back into Facebook.

I think they missed their chance with this by a long shot.

<comment><USER12> This _is_ what Facebook was ten years ago. The problem is dating wasn't as successfully monetized as it is today. Tinder/Bumble/CMB etc. have cracked that code, and Facebook wants to get in on it.

<comment><USER13> How is that correct? 10 years ago, it was mostly young folks, college, HS, 20-somethings. There was a good deal of dating-related activity happening, but the vast majority of FB back then was not related to dating.

<comment><USER12> The scene in _The Social Network_ about adding relationship status to users' profile sums it up perfectly. Facebook was a large catalog of your friends, friends' friends, classmates, coworkers etc., and showed you their profiles, pictures, if they were dating, who they were dating, their interests and more. Facebook was the largest dating site in the world the moment it got popular.

<comment><USER14> I don't agree. Allowing someone to list their relationship status on their otherwise-non-dating-site profile is a far _far_ cry from providing tools and UX to help people match with others they might be interested in.

Certainly people have found romantic partners on FB in the past 15 years, but I would view that as in _spite_ of the lack of dating-related features. Up until now, FB has not been geared toward or especially useful as a dating platform, especially given the availability of dating apps that actually fill that niche.

I think FB Dating has the potential to be _way_ more successful to a mainstream audience than nearly any dating app built to date, though.

<comment><USER15> I can't believe you guys are arguing over whether or not Facebook used to be a dating site and nobody has mentioned the "poke" button.

<comment><USER16> When I was in high school, back before the news feed, Facebook was the best way to flirt! Go to someone's page and post a comment — it was was so casual. Too bad Facebook killed it when they started broadcasting everything you post.

<comment><USER17> This is why people defaulted to Snapchat shortly after. Having temporary messages/pictures was ideal when after seeing evidence of failed relationships, people wanted the evidence of early flirting to be gone from the record.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This has been live in Canada for some time in a "beta" incarnation, and from a purely product standpoint it is terrible.

The UI is just bad. You cannot browse profiles, you must say "yes" or "no" and the decision is final. If you scroll down to read a profile more, when you pass, it leaves you in the same scroll spot in the next profile. This is User Interface 101 level stuff. The list of problems goes on from there.

Everything about it says "throwaway add-on" that they haven't spent any real time on optimizing.

When originally announced, Match stock dropped 25% on the news, only to bounce back. I don't see this product really making a big dent in the Match bottom line.

<comment><USER19> >The UI is just bad. You cannot browse profiles, you must say "yes" or "no" and the decision is final.

So Tinder?

<comment><USER18> Yes, but on Tinder the profiles will re-appear later when you go back to swipe again. Other apps allow general browsing and better photo viewing too.

<comment><USER20> Wait, are you saying that Tinder will show you accounts that you've swiped left on at a later date? I have not found that to be the case.

<comment><USER18> Yes, I've personally seen memorable profiles come back later. It's one way to make the app seem busier with more people.

<comment><USER20> Interesting. I wonder if this is people deleting and re-creating accounts? Or spam accounts using the same images?

<comment><USER18> Oh, that might be possible. I mostly remember the photos and not the details of the profile, which by design is pretty thin as it is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> "Secret Crush Lists"

Yeah that doesn't sound like something that'll end up on Pastebin.

<comment><USER22> When the largest accompanying FB news headline is: "Over 400 million Facebook users' phone numbers exposed" this feels like the most poorly timed product launch.

<comment><USER23> I assume they're thinking the groups of people that read security disclosure articles and those that would use FB dating are disjoint. They're probably not wrong.

<comment><USER24> We overestimate change in the short-term but underestimate it in the long term. Any individual news story isn't going to be the reason Facebook loses 75% of their users over night, but the steady march of these stories isn't going to have no effect. I find it easy to imagine a world where in 5-10 years, Facebook is a complete non-entity, and for all the articles written that claim to understand why, nobody will actually be able to point at any small set of events as an explanation. It could be the very small contributions of a lot of events.

I (physically) don't live in SV or its bubble, and I can assure you, the news that Facebook isn't necessarily trustworthy is getting out there to "the masses". It isn't necessarily changing people habits yet, but the process is certainly started. By the time it causes noticeable problems for Facebook, it may be too far progressed for them to do anything about it.

<comment><USER23> I agree with you, but Facebook seems be aware and is mitigating using brands like Instagram and Whatsapp which average people don't associate with Facebook. If they keep acquiring undervalued social companies and downplaying their ownership, I could see them sticking around for quite a while unfortunately.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> So, I'd use this, as someone who has trouble getting matches on dating apps usually. Facebook already has the largest issue for dating apps solved: the network chicken-and-egg problem. Dating apps are non-exclusive, I have 3 installed on my phone and using an additional one isn't a big deal.

If they are able to provide a differentiated feature set from other apps because they can better leverage FB interest data, I don't see why this couldn't work.

Is anyone else on this thread even in the dating scene right now? I really don't see how this is a plainly bad idea.

<comment><USER26> Also, what people on HN seem to be missing is that with dating, I don't care where I get my "leads" from. I can be using every single dating app at once, so what do I care about clicking "enable dating" on Facebook?

Facebook gave me a notification to try FB Dating the other week. I clicked it, chose my pics, and was on the meat market immediately, receiving phone notifications like "Karen liked you" just like any other dating app. I click it, view their profile, and start messaging them. Being linked to Facebook profiles, I also have more trust in the other party which is how Tinder started out.

HN rants so consistently about dating apps that I think it's mostly just ranting about dating in general.

Facebook is ubiquitous in Mexico where I live. And when I go back to the States and meet people 20-35 downtown, I have yet to find people who aren't on Facebook. I think HNers vastly overestimate the exodus from Facebook, if there is one, just because we like to cover FB's privacy issues here on HN.

<comment><USER27> I haven't read all the comments in this thread but I do agree with the idea that this _could_ erode trust even more, ultimately being one of the 1,000 cuts that causes their death. I don't see a big problem with it in general or in the short-term and it's something that's been thrown around for years: why doesn't FB do dating?

In reality, you nailed my experience with dating apps (self + friends on them). Every single person I know uses multiple since the source of a date does not matter to them. They just want what they're looking for. The cost to use an app is so low and context switching is easy enough. And everyone hates on some or all of them...and continues to use all of them.

Many of the non-tech people I meet in real life don't even know the difference between an app and the mobile web. They know interfaces well enough to get the things they need done, done.

FB already has the social layer and lots of other data, so I don't foresee this as a terrible idea. Seems more like a small bet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> _" If your crush isn't on Dating, doesn't create a Secret Crush list, or doesn't put you on their list — then no one will know that you've entered their name."_

I'm looking forward to watching the shitstorm when that info gets leaked or an exploit is found that allows you to see whose lists you're on.

<comment><USER29> You add all your friends to your secret crush list, and find everyone who's added you? The exploit is built in.

<comment><USER30> It sounds like they limited this to 9 friends, but if you can still cycle through the list it'll be problematic.

<comment><USER26> You presumably will still avoid obvious social nukes like crushing on your friend's wife.

I don't see much downside to the crush system. If someone's going to have a hissy fit or ruin relationships because they insist on doing the work of cycling through all their friends, then, well, they should be careful for what they wish for.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Reminds me of this dialog from the Social Network movie:

 _Relationship Status, Interested In. This is what drives life at college. Are you having sex or aren't you. It's why people take certain classes, and sit where they sit, and do what they do, and at its, um, center, you know, that's what the Facebook is gonna be about. People are gonna log on because after all the cake and watermelon there's a chance they're actually gonna, (get laid), meet a girl. Yes._

<comment><USER32> That movie, like this sentiment about facebook, is now 9 years old.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Date your friends! :D On a more serious note though, why not? If their mission is to help connect people and this helps connect people that otherwise had trouble dating and this does so in a meaningful way then sounds good to me. Privacy is always a concern no matter what the app/site/technology.

<comment><USER34> The article says this: Facebook Dating _won't match you with friends_ , unless you choose to use Secret Crush and you both add each other to your list. All of your Dating activity will stay in Facebook Dating. It won't be shared to the rest of Facebook.

<comment><USER35> > unless you choose to use Secret Crush

Add all your friends to Secret Crush. Watch who matched you.

"Sorry buddy, I wasn't really using the thing, I just added everyone, but thanks for letting me know you like me!"

Idiots. And _this_ is why the shared identity is a terrible idea for dating sites. You want dating profiles to be throwaway, and you want it to be hard for your friends to find your dating persona for this reason!

But of course Facebook doesn't understand the need to keep secrets from (some of) your friends.

<comment><USER36> You can only have 9 Secret Crushes at a time.

Believe it or not, they actually have put _some_ thought into their final product based on the beta tests conducted in smaller international markets.

<comment><USER35> Ok, so then you rotate that list through your friends. They might make it tedious to go through all my friends, but if I'm determined enough, I can do it.

<comment><USER36> No, because that would require you and your friends to be in each others crush list _at the same time_.

Unless you and your friends only have 9 facebook friends each, you prove nothing with this bizarre hypothetical you've constructed.

<comment><USER35> People who seriously use this feature will put their secret crushes on the list, and then forget about it.

I come along a few months later, and rotate all my friends through this list, and so I discover which of my friends have secret crushes on me, because I'm not using the feature like you're "supposed" to.

<comment><USER36> It doesn't work that way based on the international betas, but if you want to believe you've hacked Facebook Dating, go ahead and believe that if it will make you feel better.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> If I look at who I know that is still using fb it is almost exclusively older people. I'm 33 and deleted my fb account, almost every person I know younger than me either did the same or was never on in the first place.

I see this being huge for older adults who are divorced or widowed, those are the people still using fb and I think would be happy to use this service.

<comment><USER26> Counter-anecdote: I'm 30 and have yet to meet someone in my dating/friend range (20-35) that never had Facebook here in Mexico or home in Austin.

I'd be curious if you're socializing in some sort of anti-FB bubble or actually have a sample size of like 5 people when you consider the people you actually know this info about.

<comment><USER38> Willing to date 10 years younger, but only 5 years higher.

Interesting.

<comment><USER26> Controversial in 2019, but youth is a perk if I get to choose with an "age range" slider. Also, women 35+ are usually on a different clock than I am.

I'm happy to share more insight as a man dating at 30 if you want, but just ask.

<comment><USER39> This is veering wildly off topic but I'm curious: don't you think people in their early 20's would also be on a wildly "different clock"? I'm only slightly older than you are and through a weird series of event ended up frequenting a WhatsApp group populated mainly by people in their early 20s and the culture shock is pretty large.

People in their early 20's are generally students, they have different priorities, lower incomes, different cultural differences etc... It seems easier to find 40yo who share my interests and my lifestyle in my experience.

<comment><USER40> The "different clock" hombre_fatal is referring to is the "biological clock" \- A single childless woman aged 35 who wants a family with two or three children has very little time to waste (assuming she wants a traditional two- biological-parent family structure which is _extremely_ common among members of the upper middle class).

They need someone ready to make a lifetime commitment - and as it's rare to marry without dating for at least a year or so, they've only got a few rolls of the dice left.

If that's not where hombre_fatal is in his life, such women won't see a future with him.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> "a Dating profile (separate from your main profile)" "Secret Crush lists" "All of your Dating activity will stay in Facebook Dating" "Feel safe by sharing details"

I don't know how anyone who's read a news article about Facebook in the past year (or browsed the web and glanced at the ads they get) can believe any of this.

<comment><USER42> I actually laughed out loud when I read this. What a sad joke/lie.

</comment></comment><comment> d--b This may feel weird to us, HN people. But perhaps it's the good move for Facebook because a lot of people use it differently than we do.

There are a lot of people using Facebook as a serious communication platform (think your mum and dad, or your friends from high school). These guys aren't hiding who they are much on facebook.

They'll probably get way better matches on Facebook than on traditional dating sites.

This is not a competitor to Tinder, I see this as a serious dating site for shyer or older people.

</comment><comment><USER43> Whereas tinder, instagram, and others value add is from their content, the value of Facebook (the platform) has always been the network.

Facebook as a company has always been chasing after content. This is because content has a direct and clear monetization strategy whereas helping people make use of their network is difficult to make money from. Well, it shows - $40bn in revenue, 80% of it in ads.

Helping people to use their network effectively is basically charity work to Facebook. How are you going to at-scale monetize that out? The answer: you don't.

But with some irony, after chasing content for over a decade, I think Facebook is now in a position to do some charity work. Similar to Google, who saturated their ad team's return on value and has it's employees working on moonshots all day, Facebook can now afford to sit on their content engines and attack problem spaces that are harder to monetize and solve but provide more meaningful value.

Long story short, I think it's the right time for Facebook's hayday to sneak up on us because it can quietly focus on adding real value via our networks without chasing after money from them.

I really like the idea of Facebook Dating, because 1) it already has the network and doesn't need to build it, and 2) it doesn't need to make money.

Most dating apps suffer under the pressure to make money and grow. For a dating app to grow it has to focus on building cohesive user bases that find value in each other and eventually creates its own ecosystems that damages the experience for others (i.e. hookup culture). While Facebook Dating might still have some of that, I could see it ending up as a more serious dating platform because it doesn't need to focus on user growth.

How would you monetize Marketplace? Facebook Dating? The answer is: you don't care that much, throw some ads on it and let it cover costs. 7-8 years ago when people were searching for Facebook's killer money printing machine, these projects would have a lot of pressure to make a lot of money. Nowadays, sheltered by the content engine that Facebook has amassed, these projects can focus on providing immediate and strong value through Facebook's core benefit (it's network) and hold off on how to make money for a couple of years.

Sounds familiar? It sounds a lot like Gmail.

</comment><comment><USER44> >The consolidation of social activities (such as the process of dating, dating apps, and the network effects that result) into these walled gardens makes being a conscientious objector of social media more challenging each time they announce a feature like this. I and others don't want to use Facebook. Please don't leave us with no choice.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19790889](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19790889)

<comment><USER45> > I and others don't want to use Facebook. Please don't leave us with no > choice

What? You don't want to use then don't use it. That's your choice.

<comment><USER46> Literally the entire lesson of the social networking age is that it's _not_ entirely your choice. If everyone you know is on Facebook, and everyone you want to date is on Facebook, all the events you want to attend are organized on Facebook, etc., you have very strong pressures on you to use Facebook, whether you want to or not.

<comment><USER47> Nonsense. Just don't use Facebook. Send email or use iMessage/Signal whatevs. If you are "left out" \-- then those people probably cared about your involvement only superficially. As far as people you want to date -- how weird would it be to actually talk to the person? You'd stand out from the crowd specifically because you aren't like everybody else. Grow a spine.

<comment><USER48> Not using Facebook is fine for direct conversations. It really isn't an option in larger groups.

\----

Here's a great example. I go on a canoe weekend with a bunch of old friend each year. Some years it has an upwards of 100 people attending. I know about 10 to 20 people, including the hosts, very well. The rest are either acquaintances, second connections, or friends/family of the hosts.

Everything gets done via a Facebook event because it's the easiest way for the hosts to communicate with a group of 100 people. A few people "refuse" to use Facebook so all communication with them about the event has to be done on a secondary channel. Sometimes those people accidentally get left out of important notices. It's nothing malicious, just the hosts having jobs and busy lives and forget about a few odd ones out.

<comment><USER49> I don't use Facebook. When I want to hang out with friends, I call or text them on my mobile phone. If I want to invite people to an event, I call or text them on my mobile phone. Or if we're hanging out I'll say something like "we should go to [event] next week!"

I haven't used Facebook for years and it has not obstructed my social life in any way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> I don't get their strategy. Why are they patching on to Facebook like this? Would this dating feature not be better strategically in Instagram? Facebook is rotten in the minds of users but IG is not yet.

<comment><USER51> Dating makes money, Tinder is successful, so Facebook are leaving money on the table... or worse, letting someone else take the money from the table... if they don't do dating.

Of course, the pool of potential people you can date is "those on Facebook", so that's hilarious and compounds existing problems with echo chambers.

<comment><USER52> I would love a date people NOT on facebook app.

<comment><USER53> What about people like me, who have a FB account but never really do anything with it?

The only things I use mine for are 1) using FB Messenger (lite) to communicate with some other people who use that, and 2) selling some of my crap on FB Marketplace.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> All dating apps target millennials... because they are developed by millennials. When will SV get for once that they don't get their demographic as they have nothing in common with people 40+. For example, except Microsoft, no other SV company gets families. I was surprised by the idiotic family support Google offers in their ecosystem and especially Google One. Same with Spotify, Netflix, etc. Facebook with their "family" support of children less than 13 is totally idiotic as well (scrapbooks or whatever they call it) - <USER2> so is their "dating" app! They just don't innovate these days - they just copy competitors in sick hopes to make people come back.

<comment><USER55> > All dating apps target millennials

Millennials are almost in their 40s now! The prime dating app market (low to mid 20s) is now Gen Z.

<comment><USER54> True about millennials and Gen Z, but "millennial" now acquired the meaning of "ungrounded young people". It depends on what you call a "market". Real dating apps charge fees and don't have hidden agendas like Facebook (rule the world and sell your data to advertisers) - that's what I call a "dating app market". Sifting thru photos is not really dating - especially Instagram and Facebook photos, which, in most cases, are twisted reality.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> Seeing something like this come out of Facebook makes me glad to be married. Is it a good idea for them? Yes. Will people use it? Probably. Is it a little creepy to imagine a company that's already under constant scrutiny about how it handles your data to also know more about your dating life? Absolutely.

That said, Facebook is already out with 20-somethings. Is this really going to used by that audience? Or is this replacing Yahoo Personals for 40-somethings?

<comment><USER57> They already own Instagram, WhatsApp and Messenger.

If they can't get them on FB, the features will trickle down towards the family of apps, maybe under a different app name or feature.

<comment><USER56> Instagram Dating or WhatsApp Dating actually sounds hilarious and I want to see those.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> Finally, all the tracking they've done on their users over many years could yield the best matching algorithm :|

<comment><USER59> Dating sucks, but I'm still more uncomfortable with the idea of somebody's initial meeting being reduced to matching algorithms.

<comment><USER58> In my opinion, it might actually prove to be better than letting people decide based on super superficial attributes on dating profiles. Online dating completely sucks, guys have no choice, girls have too many bad choices.

<comment><USER60> There are other dating apps outside of Tinder and Bumble. I am married, so I don't use them personally, but my friends use/used Tinder/Bumble for more casual dating/hook ups. When they were looking for something a little more serious they would use something like OK Cupid to provide matches based on similar interests.

Either way, I don't see how online dating will ever not suck. I have no clue how it is in gay communities, but I do not see straight people's problems ever being different: i.e. Women having to deal with the ocean of terrible men, and Men having the problem of trying to stand out in that ocean (and in some of my male friends cases, not being so picky).

<comment><USER26> Online dating just makes obvious the reality of actual dating.

For example, HNers talk about online dating as though they think they aren't being sized up in real life based on their looks and how they dress. And that it wasn't until Tinder that people started doing this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> > It takes the work out of creating a dating profile and gives you a more > authentic look at who someone is.

It feels like most people post too many fake pictures, news and crap on their profiles and this isn't going to be a good idea. "Look guys, I'm happy on Virgin Islands, like this!" (also on Prozac)

</comment><comment><USER62> With Facebook's embracing of machine learning and their very deep dataset of personal information about users, this could be quite an amazing user experience and quite a terrifying prospect for privacy.

Facebook has a wealth of information on social relationship interactions and also on personal interests. Adding in information on romantic relationship interactions will allow them to (eventually, when the ML models are well- trained) provide amazing matches for users. The downside is that they'll now have a deep understanding of yet another aspect of your persona.

What are the dangers? How can they monetize this new relationship knowledge?

* Life insurance companies might want to know if someone is prone to date adrenaline junkies and be easily coerced into participating. * Insurance might want to know if someone "hooks up" frequently, which could indicate that the person is at risk of medical problems _OR_ has issues with impulse control. * Dating profiles often match people by self-reported social activities like doing drugs, drinking, etc. That might be of interest to lots of companies. * Relationship going well? Expect to see a lot of ads related to co-habitation (joint checking accounts, moving services, etc) * If the dating service has a "feedback" component to allow people who go on dates to give information on aspects of the other persons personality, facebook might get information about a person that they don't even realize themselves and thus don't self-report. Such as the other person dresses badly, smells funny, needs dental work, tips well, etc. * If facebook determines that you tend to fall for a certain types of physical traits, ads featuring models with those traits will become a thing. * People don't give facebook every bit of information about themselves, but they do give it to dating services.

Think of all those questionnaires that ask about your opinions on abortion, if you want to have kids, if dating someone with different political beliefs is a hard pass, etc. Dating services use it to match people up who might be compatible, but Facebook will use it help advertisers get even more granular controls over their targeted users.

Even worse, if Facebook wants a certain political party to win, they could match up people who are firmly established in the political party they choose with people who are on the fence in order to let the dominant personality win.

</comment><comment><USER63> Off-topic, but the number of times people misspell Colombia as Columbia is very high and I'm (more) disappointed in FB for letting it pass.

<comment><USER64> It grinds my gears too. Mnemonic for anyone that struggles with it:

ColOmbia is the cOuntry.

ColUmbia is the shUttle (or University).

<comment><USER65> Or:

Columbia is named after Christopher Columbus

Colombia is named after Cristoforo Colombo

If you can remember which countries traditionally mostly speak English, and which mostly spoke a Romance language, you have a shot at getting it right.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> I wonder how this fares for Tinder and Bumble. People already use Instagram to 'source' potential mates. Now they can delete one more app off their phone, remember one fewer login.

Nobody I know uses Snapchat anymore because of Instagram stories.

<comment><USER67> Which is why I can't for the life of me understand why people value companies like snapchat so highly when they are simply the current fad. Then you see oh they lost $20 Billion since their IPO and you wonder why people with that much money can't see what's clear as day to me. In 5 years, snapchat will be myspace, I'm willing to bet on it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> I'm still waiting for LinkedIn dating.

<comment><USER69> or Blind

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> What could possibly go wrong??

<comment> false-mirror Wild no one is addressing the floodgate of harassment this is opening. At least when one is harassed on another app they can just close it or delete your account and the harasser has little recourse.

Given their history, FB will likely just let this mess fester

</comment></comment><comment><USER71> Yup, great idea! Cue the 'calling out' posts, the bitter posts when it does not work out, the wackos of all ages, and a new culture of publicly describing your personal life in a new reality TV-like, shameless manner.

Some years back a nephew (who was about 18 then), had a public back and forth with his girlfriend while their many friends Liked each post like two teams.

Let's bring the hyperreality to dating. I won't participate but I'll surely be watching the results.

</comment><comment><USER72> Online dating seems to be a perennial problem, like a note-taking or "todo app" that attracts many different approaches from startups, but whose end result never quite scratches the itch (for me, at least).

a bit offtopic, but have any HN users successfully used dating websites in the past 2-3 years to find long-term partners or spouses? If so, which did you use and do you feel the site/app helped facilitate that process, or was it more of luck that it worked out?

<comment><USER26> I've met three girlfriends on Tinder that I dated for more than a year.

Dating is always a crap shoot and there's nothing an app can do about it except expose you to volume and ensure you're seeing women who think you're attractive at all. I don't think there's anything I can know about someone that can predict if we'll have chemistry, and that's almost all that matters in the sense that it's not a choice for either person nor can you make it past a meetup without it. For that reason I'm interested in meeting basically any woman I'm attracted to, and that's exactly what an app like Tinder facilitates.

I've had zero chemistry with women everyone thought were perfect for me. And I've had long relationships with complete opposites. The question is simple: wanna grab a drink or not?

Dating isn't an easy problem. And the reality of it feels cold and cruel to begin with. Apps can't fix that part. There are always people out there who won't even give you a shot because of something out of your control, and that's a hard pill for some to swallow.

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> It sounds to me like a primary use case of this would be... cheating...

Unlike other dating platforms, this one is integrated with your supposedly up to date profile. Being able to set up a low risk secret crush with a known friend seems likely to be popular to those interested in doing so.

That is to say, a person who wants to cheat has no problem having a Facebook profile, so there's not a need for anonymity against being found by known acquaintances like you might expect on other platforms.

<comment><USER74> There's no way Facebook would allow someone to use Facebook Dating while their relationship status is set to "married" or "in a relationship." That leaves only alternate accounts as an option for someone using their dating to cheat, but I dont think Facebook has much of an alternate account culture.

Unless someone has an account for personal use and an account for "work" use that they cheat with? And their work friends list are all part of the pool for the Facebook dating protocol? That would get real messy.

<comment><USER73> I look forward to seeing if your first statement is true.

<comment><USER73> Seems like it was false! You can use this while married on Facebook

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> Man what a shame, if they weren't a decade late (both in terms of competition and in terms of folks having trust in Facebook), this could have been cool.

</comment><comment><USER76> Facebook has 10+ years of data about people and their friendships and relationships unfolding through time (tagged pictures, relationship status, updates, likes, etc.). It's hard to tell if they've built and deployed such a model for proposing matches, but this could be their killer feature. Superficially, this product seems no different from existing data apps.

<comment><USER77> That was what I thought! I'm a pretty anti-Facebook person, and I don't have a profile anymore. But facebook has data on you both explicit and implicit. They can predict your mental health state, socioeconomic status, and they have tons of data on the formation of relationships and marriages. They can even predict who you like and who you're going to date next. As creepy as that data is, why shouldn't they use it to actually connect people who they would predict to be compatible? A huge problem for online dating platforms is making good suggestions, and Facebook is probably the most well equipped to address it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER78> They did it with marketplace and took a very significant bite out of places like craigslist. I'm sure they can do the same for dating.

<comment><USER79> I did not expect Marketplace to take off and now it's a must-check before Craigslist.

<comment><USER53> Not only that, but as much as I like to bad-mount FB, I will say that when I post stuff on FB Marketplace to sell, I _never_ get people saying they want to buy it from me with a cashier's check. There are a lot of flakes, however, but that's the case with CL as well, but I've never run across a scammer, whereas on CL I get scammers all the time with the stupid cashier's check scam.

<comment><USER80> This is totally regional and item category specific. Anything primarily bought sold by the people that write "I check email once a week and don't text so call me" in their CL ads is not going to be on marketplace.

<comment><USER53> I don't follow. I can post the exact same listing on FBM and CL, and with CL I get bombarded with scammers, and with FBM I never do. In fact, with FB, I'm not sure _how_ you would ever get contacted by scammers at all, since it's tied to your FB account, so someone would have to go to the trouble of maintaining a fake FB account just for this purpose, and it would presumably be quickly flagged and disabled as soon as a couple people got obvious scam communications from it. For better or worse, the "real person" feature about FB and lack of privacy, actually seems to work in its favor here. Anyone with a phone (or who can spoof a phone number in your area code from Nigeria) can contact you on a CL listing, whereas with FB the bar is much, much higher and there's a lot more policing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> john-radio Does this service exist only as an app at this time? I have long ago decided that Facebook is not trustworthy enough for it to be allowed to have an app installed on my smartphone. Which I guess should remind me that it is not trustworthy enough to run a dating service that I should take part in.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> And it looks like they're already anticipating your privacy questions: [https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2019/09/privacy-matters- dating/](https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2019/09/privacy-matters-dating/)

<comment><USER81> > That means we won't create a Facebook Dating profile for your account unless > you specifically choose to create one.

Does not specify if they will be data mining my profile for dating-related analytics.

> Your Dating activity, such as people you like or pass on, won't be shared > with anyone outside Dating.

What does 'anyone' mean? Do they refer to other users or do they also close the door to advertisers to show you ads based on who you like?

Also, why is Europe outside of the first launch? Does it have anything to do with GDPR? It's just suspicious.

Each time Facebook comes closer to the Black Mirror version of it...

</comment></comment><comment><USER82> Hard pass. The last thing we need is Steve Bannon targeting ads at people based on who they've dated.

</comment><comment><USER83> Dating platforms are incentivized to keep the client (whether they are a paying customer, or an individual giving them passive income through advertising) from leaving the platform. What do you think is in Facebook's interest? You leaving the platform to live a satisfying love life?

<comment><USER41> I hate to say it, but this is actually an advantage of FB here. Once you're no longer dating, you'll still use their platform, just like you did before. They have no incentive to keep you in the dating pool.

<comment><USER84> This has been my thought on why FB will probably do fantastic in this space.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER85> It doesn't seem to do anything that a normal "Dating" app does. It's just a private friends list. You can already like and message people you have a crush on, without this. Who is this for?

 _" Secret Crush lets you match with people you already know on Facebook and/or Instagram."_

Because what people have been clamoring for is to know which of their friends like them more than is mutual, so they can feel weird.

 _" You can choose to see other people who are using Facebook Dating that fit your preferences within the groups you are part of and the events you have attended or will be attending."_

'Oh look, this person at this upcoming event is looking for a date! I'll go hit on them in person without messaging them.'

<comment><USER53> >Because what people have been clamoring for is to know which of their friends like them more than is mutual, so they can feel weird.

I haven't read the article, but I'm guessing this is probably a typical 2-way match algorithm, or else it really doesn't make sense. i.e., both friends have to put the other in their "secret crush" list for it to inform them that they have a crush on each other.

What they really need is a "secret crush for FWB only" list: what if I have a friend that I'd be happy to be FWB with, but have zero interest in a serious relationship, but don't want to broach that topic with her for fear that it would mess up our friendship? This would be a perfect use for FB.

<comment><USER86> >What they really need is a "secret crush for FWB only" list: what if I have a friend that I'd be happy to be FWB with, but have zero interest in a serious relationship, but don't want to broach that topic with her for fear that it would mess up our friendship? This would be a perfect use for FB.

Now there's an idea!

<comment><USER85> So just straight up ask the person "Have you ever thought about us hooking up?". If they don't want it, they'll just decline, and you can both get over it. Or they'll think you're a creep, and you won't be friends anymore, which is probably for the best seeing as you were harboring secret desires for this person.

Either way, being up-front and honest will have a better result than letting Facebook connect you because you were too scared to broach the subject.

<comment><USER53> >Because what people have been clamoring for is to know which of their friends like them more than is mutual, so they can feel weird.

How the hell is this something despicable and wrong in your eyes? Honestly, you sound like you have some kind of psychological problem if you think it's wrong to be attracted to a friend.

<comment><USER85> Calm down buddy. A lot of people are weirded out when they find out their friends want to screw them. It's a common problem for women that just want platonic friends.

<comment><USER53> Don't tell me to "calm down"; you sound like a patronizing asshole. You're injecting your prudish religious values here, not me. There's nothing wrong with being sexually attracted to people, and if you only make friends with opposite-sex people you find repulsive, then there's something wrong with you.

<comment><USER85> I _am_ patronizing you, but I'm not religious or prudish in the least, and I never said that nobody should ever be attracted to their friend; only that _they might find it weird_. You're not really listening to what I'm saying, though, you're just being defensive at the idea that your affections for your friends might be regarded badly. You can feel however you want about others, but don't expect them to be super flattered that you want to have sex with them. (Ok, you can _expect_ whatever you want, but _reality_ might be a different story)

<comment><USER53> >but don't expect them to be super flattered that you want to have sex with them.

Why the hell do you think I made the suggestion in the first place? Of course I realize this.

>and I never said that nobody should ever be attracted to their friend; only that they might find it weird.

Wrong. You called me out as some kind of freak for being attracted to friends. Go read your own writings above. The whole reason I made the suggestion is because of course I realize some would find it weird (or more accurately, uncomfortable) if their friend voiced their attraction out loud, so a 2-way match app would solve this problem without anyone being made to feel uncomfortable or anyone missing out on an opportunity because of being afraid of making their friends uncomfortable. You're the one who said this was morally wrong and that people should just tell their friends this and ruin their friendships.

<comment><USER85> I did say people should tell their friends, because I find being honest and straightforward to be more virtuous (and realistic) than being secretive. But I never called you a freak, and I certainly never said it was immoral to be attracted to friends. If I thought those things I would just say so.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER87> I am shocked by the ignorance here. "Why would Facebook do this? Nobody trusts them, they've run out of ideas, etc."

They're the largest social network in the world, and this site is a filter bubble of privacy advocates and relatively anti-social people. Do you truly believe there isn't a market on Facebook for dating? Do you really think Facebook brand is universally tarnished in some way that this isn't a good move for a company with such power and money on hand?

Come on.

I'm angry at myself for _not_ predicting this. Although back in the day, it was allowable to search for people by a lot more filters, such as town, interest, school, etc. to find people. Now it's doing it for you.

<comment><USER53> I really fail to see how trying to get into the dating market for 40-80 year old right-wing conservatives is really going to help them. The 20-somethings don't use FB, and sure as hell aren't going to use it for dating, and the 30-somethings probably aren't either.

<comment><USER57> > The 20-somethings don't use FB, and sure as hell aren't going to use it for > dating, and the 30-somethings probably aren't either.

Facebook has been known (and are starting to) take over their family of apps. Instagram, WhatsApp and Messenger are already used by the 20 somethings and all the founders are gone so they have full control over them.

I wouldn't be surprised that they would shower features into it's family of apps that already exist on FB. (See Stories)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER88> The Secret Crush thing is going to spread like a hideous virus, and be cited in many divorce papers...

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rNgCnY1lPg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rNgCnY1lPg)

</comment><comment><USER89> On a tangential note; there still seems to be a lot of improvements to be done in the area of dating apps.

I still can't believe that in the era of Machine Learning, Big Data, etc. Tinder insists on presenting me with people with certain characteristics that I almost always pass up on.

Companies know with scarily accuracy which things I want to buy but can't present me with someone I'd like to meet and which will potentially want to meet me as well? (Or maybe there's no such person, heh).

Or maybe this is just so that I spend all my "Passes" and I buy Tinder Gold or whatever their premium service is called...

</comment><comment><USER90> What I find most interesting about this is that a dating application finally gets away from the core business model conflict. Facebook doesn't need users to stay on the Dating application to be profitable.

</comment><comment><USER91> The one thing they failed to mention in this press release was pricing. All the competing dating apps are so expensive. If this is free, that's a game changer!

</comment><comment><USER92> Goodbye Match, Inc. - And frankly, Facebook is probably a better option, for as bad as they are regarding privacy issues.

</comment><comment><USER93> > _Facebook Dating makes it easier to find love through what you like_

I don't like Facebook... No dating for me!

Seriously, Facebook seems to be a tool for self-advertising (look at my wonderful holiday photos), while dating is more personal/intimate/truthful (in theory at least). How long can a relationship last that's not based on truth?

<comment><USER20> People who use dating apps usually quickly convert to one of two states: "meet in person" or "stop contacting each other". You're suggesting that people meeting in-person are going to be not truthful with each other in a way different than any other dating app?

</comment></comment><comment><USER94> If I was an exec at Tinder what do you do here? There's nothing exactly that differentiates FB Dating from Tinder and I can't think of an USP differentiating the two, except that FB Dating may be more convenient.

Kind of an interesting precedent though that FB decided to build this in-house rather than buy Tinder as well.

<comment><USER95> >There's nothing exactly that differentiates FB Dating from Tinder and I can't think of an USP differentiating the two, except that FB Dating may be more convenient.

I couldn't disagree more - Tinder shows you pretty much random people apart from some incredibly basic criteria (age, gender, proximity) whereas FB has the potential to be massively more effective at matching you given that it has a huge wealth of information (e.g. liked posts, pages, etc) to draw upon to select candidate matches to show you. It may naively assume that similarity is always good and that isn't necessarily true so hopefully their algorithm isn't so naive.

Either way, so FB's dating experience could completely destroy Tinder unless they get their ass in gear quickly and deliver a more more success-focused user experience, right now Tinder doesn't seem to care at all about match quality, nor eliminating fake & dormant profiles.

</comment></comment><comment><USER96> This could fill in nicely the void left in the dating scene by Craigslist's rule changes not too long ago.

</comment><comment><USER97> Heh.. This may actually work and I'm surprised it wasn't implemented sooner.

Back in the mid 2000's, I was on Hi5. So were a lot of people where I lived. Although a social network, everyone I knew was using it solely for dating. I got dozens of good dates from Hi5. It was pretty awesome.

</comment><comment><USER98> > Starting today, you can choose to opt into Facebook Dating and create a > Dating profile (separate from your main profile) if you're 18 years or older > and have downloaded the most recent version of Facebook

So this is mobile-only? Exclusive of WhatsApp/Instagram, isn't that a first for FB?

</comment><comment><USER99> Can anyone tell me how to actually opt in and use dating? I cant find it in the app on android.

</comment><comment><USER100> This will be successful, the #1 cheating app will also be the #1 dating app it's a no brainer

</comment><comment><USER101> Didn't Facebook originally start as a "reductionistic" way for nerds around Mark to connect with "secret crushes" at Harvard? Didn't YouTube start as a dating site at UIUC as well, for pretty much the same reasons?

</comment><comment><USER102> Seems weird it shows you mutual friends. Part of the appeal of online dating is stepping outside of your friend circles and looking elsewhere. I definitely wouldn't want to broadcast my dating profile to mutual friends either.

</comment><comment><USER103> In a way this arrives extremely late, and minus the secret crush thing it's very much copying Tinder's design. On the other hand I don't see the online dating market collapsing anytime soon.

</comment><comment><USER104> I think it's a good opportunity to buy the small dip in Match. That stock has done incredibly well (doubled this year) and every earnings report has been massive as far as new subscriber count goes.

</comment><comment><USER105> Finally grandparents around the world can find their partner!

</comment><comment><USER106> Considering FB has a history of running psychological tests on users, I can easily see how their "Secret Crush Lists" could be used as a psychological test.

</comment><comment><USER86> It raises the question, where is the line drawn for FB users of things they will refuse to share with Facebook and/or allow Facebook to control?

</comment><comment><USER107> "Let's do Tinder... but with likes, shares & comments from your entire (extended) family, and your boss!"

</comment><comment><USER108> Just saying, having used Facebook Dating in Mexico where it's been for a while, much better return than on Tinder

</comment><comment><USER109> God have mercy be better than Tinder God have mercy be better than Tinder God have mercy be better than Tinder

</comment><comment><USER110> Tried to just to see... "We aren't suggesting people in your area yet." I guess I will have to wait. At least this didn't reject me like other dating sites did.

In any case, I'm not sure if I would be inclined actually meet someone from the result. Maybe because of my demisexual nature, but am I the only one feel reluctant to meet up with someone from dating sites?

</comment><comment><USER111> April fools? Had to check my calendar

<comment><USER112> I noticed the Dating tab show up a couple of months ago, so I'm only surprised to learn it wasn't already official.

</comment></comment><comment><USER113> It seems like that they are announcing this now in order to cover up the phone number leak

</comment><comment><USER114> It's facebook official, its time to get the hell off facebook

<comment><USER115> With everything they've done, dating is the line they shouldn't have crossed?

</comment></comment><comment><USER116> Would _Facebook Dating_ be competitor to _Tinder_?

</comment><comment><USER117> All the world is a stage, FB wants to be that stage.

</comment><comment><USER118> Interesting choice of pilot countries/regions.

<comment><USER115> Probably choosing countries with fewer regulations for faster time to market (they do say, for example, they're coming to Europe in 2020)

</comment></comment><comment><USER119> bug in the app on iPhone Xs: unable to leave "preview profile" step.

</comment><comment><USER120> Cool. I think I have a chance with all those wives of my friends that used to be young and single.

</comment><comment><USER121> I'm honestly just surprised that "secret crush" translates to other languages

</comment><comment><USER122> The list of supported countries does not seem to include any GDPR country.

<comment><USER123> At the end of the list:

> It will be in Europe by early 2020.

</comment></comment><comment><USER124> isn't that what instagram is for?

</comment><comment><USER125> No thanks.

</comment><comment><USER126> cringe

</comment><comment><USER127> no.

</comment><comment><USER128> Hard pass.

</comment><comment><USER129> So, Tinder?

</comment><comment><USER130> what a horrible idea for both facebook and its users

<comment><USER131> Maybe so, but please don't post unsubstantive comments here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER132> requiring installation of the FB app is a nonstarter.

</comment><comment><USER133> (now wishing HN had a downvote button)

<comment><USER134> You want to downvote the story, because you don't like what it's about, rather than you think it's bad reporting?

</comment></comment><comment><USER135> FB has clearly run out of ideas.

<comment><USER115> Have they had new ideas? Seems to me they just take existing ones and just execute better and/or leverage their network advantage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER136> Money, dating and social credit system in one place. How convenient.

<comment><USER137> It strikes me as similar to the 'super apps' in China, a la WeChat.</comment></comment>